English Riots, Moral Relativism, Gun Control, and the Welfare State

But what’s happening now is not just some left-wing punks engaging in political street theater. Instead, the U.K. is dealing with a bigger problem of societal decay caused in part by a government’s failure to fulfill one of its few legitimate functions – protection of property.

To make matters worse, the political class has disarmed law-abiding people, thus exacerbating the risks. These two photos are a pretty good summary of what this means. On the left, we have Korean entrepreneurs using guns to defend themselves from murdering thugs during the 1992 LA riots. On the right, we have Turkish entrepreneurs reduced to using their fists (and some hidden knives, I hope) to protect themselves in London.

Which group do you think has a better chance of surviving when things spiral out of control? When the welfare state collapses, will the Koreans or the Turks be in a better position to protect themselves? And what does it say about the morality of a political class that wants innocent people to be vulnerable when bad government policies lead to chaos?

Speaking of chaos, let’s look at the “root causes” of the riots and looting in the United Kingdom.

Allister Heath is the Editor of City A.M. in London, and normally I follow his economic insights, but his analysis of the turmoil is superb as well. Here’s an excerpt. But as Instapundit likes to say, read the whole article.

Debilitating, widespread fear. The country held to ransom by feckless youths. Thousands of shocked Londoners cowering in their homes, with many shops, banks and offices shutting early. …It no longer feels as if we live in a civilised country. The cause of the riots is the looters; opportunistic, greedy, arrogant and amoral young criminals who believe that they have the right to steal, burn and destroy other people’s property. There were no extenuating circumstances, no excuses. …decades of failed social, educational, family and microeconomic policies, which means that a large chunk of the UK has become alienated from mainstream society, culturally impoverished, bereft of role models, permanently workless and trapped and dependent on welfare or the shadow economy. For this the establishment and the dominant politically correct ideology are to blame: they deemed it acceptable to permanently chuck welfare money… Criminals need to fear the possibility and consequence of arrest; if they do not, they suddenly realise that the emperor has no clothes. At some point, something was bound to happen to trigger both these forces and for consumerist thugs to let themselves loose on innocent bystanders. …the argument made by some that the riots were “caused” or “provoked” by cuts, university fees or unemployment is wrong-headed. …the state will spend 50.1 per cent of GDP this year; state spending has still been rising by 2 per cent year on year in cash terms. It has never been as high as it is today – in fact, it is squeezing out private sector growth and hence reducing opportunities and jobs. …This wasn’t a political protest, it was thievery. …We need to see New York style zero tolerance policing, with all offences, however minor, prosecuted. But what matters right now is to regain control, to stamp out the violence and to arrest, prosecute and jail as many thugs as possible. The law-abiding mainstream majority feels that it has been abandoned and betrayed by the establishment and is very, very angry.

47 Responses

An odd comparison: did not several Koreans die in the LA riots, whereas so far none of the Turkish shopkeepers in East London have been killed. Less guns in the streets means less deaths, and on that score there is not the loss of life in these riots as has been the cases in American riots in the past. Also, the relations between Koreans and blacks in LA were long strained, with at least one unarmed black girl being shot to death by a Korean shopkeeper in the months/days before the riots if I recall correctly?

There are plenty of problems with present day UK society, but more guns in the streets American-style will certainly not make things better.

In the 50’s, 60’s and even into the 70s, the UK was a major exporter. The sports cars of choice for the up and coming in the USA were the Triumph, the MG, the Jaguar XKE, the Austin Healy, the Sunbeam and the Hillman: all made in England. The best turntable (to play vinyl records) was made in England by Garrard. The finest textiles and the finest china dinnerware were also made there. Tour the industrial heartland of England today and you’ll see a landscape of crumbling buildings that were once factories that supplied the world with products.

England is a microcosm of the USA. The hordes of mostly unemployed minority youth who are torching English cities could have been employed making shoes or brass door knockers or building ships or textile machinery or a myriad of other products, jobs that for the most part do not exist in England any longer. Instead, they are lost in the “new economy” of commerce and intellectual endeavor . In the USA, the unemployment rate for African-Americans is about 17%, 13% for Hispanics. Youth unemployment among minorities is much higher.

In 1963, James Baldwin wrote a prophetic book entitled, “The Fire Next Time.” The fires in the UK should be a wake up call to the globalists and their political lackeys who applaud the de-industrialization of America.

[…] Go here and read. See the difference between those that can, will and have the means to properly defend what is rightfully theirs, as opposed to those whom have lost that right and are dependent on a Government that is unwilling or unable to provide the protection needed..A Government so throttled by fears of being accused of "racism". "intolerance" that it is unwilling to take the steps needed to those that pay for the Government to exist. Not those that think they are entitled to what is not theirs. But have been given so much and returned so little. […]

Commenter Art R. touched upon a subject that I have been puzzling over for much of the past twenty years. In this so-called ‘New Economy’, the United States apparently has been chosen to be the consumers of the world’s products. No one has yet to advise what we are expected to buy these products with? If a person has no employment, how are they supposed to buy anything? Major industries that once employed millions of people in this country have been moved to other regions of the world. Now, we are being told that the American citizens are to supply ‘intellectual’ resources to the rest of the world. Really? Where are these jobs? Are there enough to go around? Who made this decision? There are several important pieces missing from this globalist puzzle.

I recently watched an interview with Michael Spence, professor of Economics at NYU. Mr. Spence advises that the United States has given our technology and ceded our economic dominance to China in order for them to become the economic powerhouse of the world today at the expense of our own productive output, and we should be proud of this. Mr. Spence also seemed to not really care if a government was politically democratic or a dictatorship, as long as they economically “get the job done”. He spent at least 15 minutes of this interview extolling the great economic virtues of Communist China and only about 5 minutes discussing the “Messy” democracy of India.

Economic systems, like governments, do not happen by accident. They develop by means of planning. What is the plan of the globalists? If part of that plan was to economically develop Asia at the expense of impoverishing our nation, it has certainly worked very well. When will the economic development of Africa begin? What will we lose in that venture? To attempt a world-wide redistribution of the means of production requires long range planning by globalists and their respective governments. What are these plans? Who is calling the shots? Are national economies now considered to be anti-capitalist? Are we to just accept that Americans are producing less of the products in the daily commerce flow of this country?

What does this have to do with the English riots, moral relativism, gun control, and the Welfare State? Simple. . . A nation that does not produce the goods that it consumes is no longer a country: It’s a colony. Inhabitants of a colony have all important economic and governmental decisions made for them by an empire. One can scan the pages of history in vain to find an example of a colony that did not rebel against a distant master. When people believe that their liberties are being sacrificed upon the altar of globalism, they are bound to feel abused. When globalists allocate resources and industries without regard to the national interests of the formerly industrialized countries, governments will fall by the hands of their rebellious inhabitants. The mob will reach out and destroy the symbols of economy and government that they feel has sold them out to foreign interests.

The global economic planners had better get their ‘New Economy’ working fast. The result of perceived economic tyranny usually results in reactionary governmental control over a national economy and its citizens. The flotsam and jetsam of the British ship of state are now washing up on the shores of America. Will we have the intellectual honesty to determine the cause of the wreck and steer a course to safer waters?

You lose me at “not just some left-wing punks.” I didn’t see anyone asking the “punks” what their political ideology was. And neither have you. (In fact, I doubt if many of them even know what the word “ideology” means.) You were just assuming it was the one you didn’t like, because of course, it couldn’t possibly be the one you did.

No, this isn’t about ideology. This is about poverty, and putting the squeeze to people already there. It’s always about that.

But I’m curious. Why is it that you folks on the right are always surprized when the people with nothing to lose start acting like they have nothing to lose? You really ought to get out more. I’d suggest London. Maybe you could find an answer to that question.

The right of self-defense is part of English common law. Why the Brits have allowed themselves to be disarmed and turned into a flock of sheep is beyond the pale. This is what happens under socialism and gun control. Churchill is spinning in his grave.

BSA: guns would “make things better” for the people living through this horror trying to protect themselves and their property. If you owned a home or a business in the path of a rioting horde, are you saying that you would rather be hurt or killed and/or your property destroyed or stolen than have the ability to defend what you hold dear? I bet you wouldn’t mind an armed civil servant coming to your aid though, would you? There’s a word for that: cowardice. I hope you’re never in a position to personally put your theory to the test.

“What does this have to do with the English riots, moral relativism, gun control, and the Welfare State?” Actually, not a d*mn thing to anyone that has taken Econ 101 and was awake during the lecture on comparative advantage.

[…] he needs to make the deep cuts in government spending needed to turn around a once proud, but now decaying, society. One can only hope that the riots have the same beneficial political effect on the U.S. […]

What the hell is wrong with you people in England? Why do you tolerate this crap? Realize that guns are good. If every law abiding member of society had access to a firearm, the thugs might think twice before going on a rampage. And why wasn’t the army ordered in and given “shoot to kill” orders? A few hundred dead thugs would have been a promising start. They’re scum-sucking welfare parasites who don’t deserve to live amongst decent people. But what else is to be expected from bleeding heart, politically correct liberalism? Good on you, England. Very good. Enjoy the chaos, with much more in the near future.

“I didn’t see anyone asking the “punks” what their political ideology was. And neither have you. (In fact, I doubt if many of them even know what the word “ideology” means.) ”

Umm, do I really need to point out that a person doesn’t have to know what a word means in order to do or experience what it describes? If not knowing the word “ideology” means a person cannot believe in or act in accordance with an ideology, then I suppose by the same reasoning you would say that our society is wasting billions of dollars and causing needless suffering by researching cures for diseases. All we need to do is take the words “hepatitis”, “cancer”, “AIDS”, etc out of the dictionary and make it a crime to tell children the definition of such words, and all disease will end in a generation! After all, how can someone suffer from cancer if they don’t know the word “cancer”?

“Why is it that you folks on the right are always surprized when the people with nothing to lose start acting like they have nothing to lose?”

Wait, I think I’m missing something. I thought the liberal position was that these people were rioting because the government was cutting programs from which these people benefit. That is, they are rioting because they DO have something to lose, and they are angry that they may lose it.

You really need to get your story straight.

In any case, I don’t know any conservatives who are surprised that people who live off government benefits are rioting when those benefits are reduced or limited. This is exactly what conservatives have been predicting and warning against for decades. It’s inevitable. When someone’s livelihood depends on the fruits of his own labor, then his natural reaction to any real or perceived shortage is to work harder or otherwise become more productive. When someone’s livelihood depends on government handouts, then his natural reaction to any real or perceived shortage is to either beg the government to give him more or to demand that the government give him more. It’s inevitable that “demands” will at some point include violence.

“Why is it that you folks on the right are always surprized when the people with nothing to lose start acting like they have nothing to lose?”

It may conveniently fit the distortions the left like to promulgate about the right, but in fact the right is not surprised at man’s capacity for violence and incivility. What does surprise the right is the left’s inability to quickly restore law and order when violence erupts.

The left’s fecklessness when facing civil disorder results from a conflict of values. On one hand they sympathize with the perceived motivations of the rioters. On the other, they value protecting property and persons. But when they prioritize these values, the former wins out. After all, if the group perpetrating the violence has a justifiable reason for violence, like opposing austerity, then the left has a moral obligation to support them.

The right, however, feels no moral obligation to support criminality. They believe the grievance does not justify the behavior and move swiftly to suppress it. Being reasonable, they naturally assume that law and order are commonly shared values in Western society, or if not commonly shared, increasingly shared as those negatively affected by the violence come to value them over whatever motivates the perpetrators. It is not, as is seen on the occasions that gives rise to divisions in world view.

Placing greater emphasis on civil behavior over sympathy with “root causes” results from a process of maturation. Do not assume that maturation is a function of age. Some resist their entire lives and will likely die at a ripe old age clinging to their values. Witness the average grey haired liberal/progressive in Madison these past few months.

[…] Here’s a thought experiment to drive the point home. If Europe does collapse, which people do you think will be in better shape to preserve civilization, the well-armed Swiss or the disarmed Brits? […]

[…] Here’s a thought experiment to drive the point home. If Europe does collapse, which people do you think will be in better shape to preserve civilization, the well-armed Swiss or the disarmed Brits? […]

BSA said that with its society in advanced decay the uk has plenty of problems but that he’s certain more guns will not make things better ….

Which is just about what every Briton said as its execrable political elite set up and led it, unarmed, into World War Two.

It’s much-vaunted battle having been effectively single-handedly won by the New Zealander, Keith Park and Trillions of Dollars of American treasure and hundreds of thousands of gallons of our blood and that of the brave warriors of the then empire and commonwealth, later, once again saved from its own bloody arrogant stupidity, the British electorate swapped the well-known anglo-American, Winston Leonard Spencer Jerome-Churchill for its only second-best-ever representative: (for none has better represented it than did the patron saint of hapless appeasers, Neville Chamberlain) who promptly set about destroying Britain’s military and — no lessons learned — disarming every Briton.

Two hundred years of being backed up and bailed-out on — and sixty-six post WW-II years and another Twenty Trillion of America’s Dollars spent on Britain’s and the rest of the Europeon Neo-Soviet’s defense later — and BSA’s hubris and arrogance extends to a sense of superiority over America’s armed yeomen?

Good luck, then, BSA. The best of British!

I pray and trust you’ll have better luck than did your namesake, the (Prince-of-Darkness) Lucas-Electrics-like one-time small arms and motorcycle manufacturer, that when the crunch come, someone’s cavalry will ride to your rescue.

And that it’s not ours!

Brian Richard Allen
Lost Angels – Califobamacated 90028
And The Very Far Abroad

But Churchill, lest we forget, was anglo-American, so only the anglo half is doing a bit of a twirl.

(And likely – while it waits for Uncle Sam to show up – re-living the Dardanelles, Malaya, Dunkirk, HMS Hood, HMS Prince of Wales and HMS Repulse, a bridge at Arnhem and Monty’s post-Normandy-Landings hedge-rows screw-ups)

[…] Here’s a thought experiment to drive the point home. If Europe does collapse, which people do you think will be in better shape to preserve civilization, the well-armed Swiss or the disarmed Brits? […]

[…] I don’t think we’ll ever get to the point where we suffer societal breakdown, but I won’t be too surprised if it happens in some European countries. We’ve already seen the challenges faced by disarmed Brits during recent riots in the United Kingdom. […]

[…] I don’t think we’ll ever get to the point where we suffer societal breakdown, but I won’t be too surprised if it happens in some European countries. We’ve already seen the challenges faced by disarmed Brits during recent riots in the United Kingdom. […]

The political ‘class’ can kiss my ……
They wont get my guns regardless.
I’ll bury them in the woods before I’ll turn them in just to make a point.
I’ll be damned if these voted in peons who think they are royalty tell me that I have no right to protect MY family like these dogs will do for their own.

“No, this isn’t about ideology. This is about poverty, and putting the squeeze to people already there. It’s always about that.”

======

NO friend, its NOT about poverty.
people who are STARVING to death can keep from butchering and raping innocent citizens.
This is about dope dealers and career criminals and THUGS who dont want to WORK for a living doing what they do best…blaming everyone else for THEIR being a complete failure as a human being and trying to take by force what doesnt belong to them.

I have 3 handguns, a rifle and 2-12 gauge shotguns loaded with magnum 1 oz deer slugs waiting for these punk thugs to come into my home uninvited.

“An odd comparison: did not several Koreans die in the LA riots, whereas so far none of the Turkish shopkeepers in East London have been killed. Less guns in the streets means less deaths, and on that score there is not the loss of life in these riots as has been the cases in American riots in the past. Also, the relations between Koreans and blacks in LA were long strained, with at least one unarmed black girl being shot to death by a Korean shopkeeper in the months/days before the riots if I recall correctly?

There are plenty of problems with present day UK society, but more guns in the streets American-style will certainly not make things better.”

=================

Apparently to your sort its far more acceptable for 1000 of our women to be raped and maimed for life as long as 1001 of your thug a$$ punks dont shoot each other.

[…] He askes the right question: “But what about the rest of us? We don’t have property overseas and we don’t have private jets, so what’s our insurance policy?” He offers the correct answer: “Part of the answer is to have the ability to protect ourselves and our families. As explained here, firearms are the ultimate guarantor of civilization.” Here’s a thought experiment to drive the point home. If Europe does collapse, which people do you think will be in better shape to preserve civilization, the well-armed Swiss or the disarmed Brits? […]

Having been a victim of violence I have chosen to carry a concealed weapon (Pistol) for the last 53 years. I have not needed to use it yet, but reserve that right to do so when it becomes necessary to protect myself or others. I do so legally and without shame or regret. I am a law abiding citizen and I believe that every law abiding citizen should be allowed to make that choice for themselves.

If gun ownership is such a bad thing why do we accept that the police should be armed? Why do criminals fear armed policemen? If there is some non violent way to deal with a thug why don’t the police use that method? If self defence is such a bad thing why do the governments of the world have armies? The same gov’ts that want to disarm their own citizens are themselves armed to the teeth.

[…] I don’t think we’ll ever get to the point where we suffer societal breakdown, but I won’t be too surprised if it happens in some European countries. We’ve already seen the challenges faced by disarmed Brits during recent riots in the United Kingdom. […]

[…] This message in my interview is particularly appropriate since I just gave a speech earlier today to the European Resource Bank conference and cited this OECD and BIS data to explain why it is just a matter of time before most nations in Europe descend into Greek-style fiscal crisis and social chaos. When that happens, it’s preferable to be one of the people with guns (unlike the unfortunate Brits when the riots struck the U.K.). […]

[…] riots swept parts of the United Kingdom last year, I wrote about the moral argument for gun ownership. Simply stated, it is wrong to disarm law-abiding people, particularly when there is a risk of […]

[…] riots swept parts of the United Kingdom last year, I wrote about the moral argument for gun ownership. Simply stated, it is wrong to disarm law-abiding people, particularly when there is a risk of […]

The absence of any mention of Mark Duggan in this article of comments is troubling.
The Great British Gun Ban Con is simply class warfare by other means. The British Police are not routinely armed but when they are things have a habit of going wrong.
“en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_killed_by_law_enforcement_officers_in_the_United_Kingdom”
The current situation has been a century in the making.
“ALL THE WAY DOWN THE SLIPPERY SLOPE: GUN PROHIBITION IN ENGLAND AND SOME LESSONS FOR CIVIL LIBERTIES IN AMERICA by Joseph E. Olson and David B. Kopel”

[…] Goldberg’s article, by the way, doesn’t even mention the value of private gun ownership when government fails to maintain public order, as occurred after Hurricane Sandy and during last year’s British riots. […]

[…] Goldberg’s article, by the way, doesn’t even mention the value of private gun ownership when government fails to maintain public order, as occurred after Hurricane Sandy and during last year’s British riots. […]

[…] This message in my interview is particularly appropriate since I just gave a speech earlier today to the European Resource Bank conference and cited this OECD and BIS data to explain why it is just a matter of time before most nations in Europe descend into Greek-style fiscal crisis and social chaos. When that happens, it’s preferable to be one of the people with guns (unlike the unfortunate Brits when the riots struck the U.K.). […]

[…] Goldberg’s article, by the way, doesn’t even mention the value of private gun ownership when government fails to maintain public order, as occurred after Hurricane Sandy and during last year’s British riots. […]

BSA, that’s a lousy analysis. How many people altogether died in the LA riots? Were they all the result of gunshot wounds? Either way, it’s all just an exercise in statistics. The worst riot of all will follow the cancellation of my civil rights. Enjoy your disarmament!

Its too late for them. They’ve been disarmed, and I don’t see them regaining that right. We may be too late, with the Kenyan emperor his welfare minions, and his allies creating “gun-free” “sanctuary cities” where most labor is under the table, performed by foreigners.

[…] I wrote two years ago to celebrate the superiority of the American system, which allowed Korean shopowners to protect themselves during the Rodney King riots in Los Angeles, and the British system, which left immigrant shopowners vulnerable and defenseless to rampaging mobs. […]

[…] This message in my interview is particularly appropriate since I just gave a speech earlier today to the European Resource Bank conference and cited this OECD and BIS data to explain why it is just a matter of time before most nations in Europe descend into Greek-style fiscal crisis and social chaos. When that happens, it’s preferable to be one of the people with guns (unlike the unfortunate Brits when the riots struck the U.K.). […]

[…] Goldberg’s article, by the way, doesn’t even mention the value of private gun ownership when government fails to maintain public order, as occurred after Hurricane Sandy and during last year’s British riots. […]

[…] that the United States is headed for a fiscal collapse, and when you consider that there already has been rioting in Europe as the welfare state implodes, it doesn’t require a very vivid imagination to think that America could face some very tough […]